The (Now-Overrated) ILX Top 100 Films of the 2000s Poll Results

i am finally going to watch RGM tonight, i think. after this poll is over i will have 20 films i liked enough to vote for, just 2 weeks too late ; )

Calling Chuck & Buck a Hollywood film is bizarre. You joking about it being set in LA?

/smuggles radical content into a totally conservative style of filmmaking./
--pro bono publico (history mayne)

I thought maybe he was referring to that Chuck & Larry movie.

what is this, the straits of hormuz? there is no smuggling of anything going on here
--goole

i enjoyed the first bourne film. years later i saw the second one, having forgotten much of the first, and i didn't understand a moment of it.

This thread is the Straits of Homoz amirite

i couldn't possibly comment

couldn't care less about RGM or any of the Bourne movies, personally. I think I've snoozed through at least a couple of the Bourne movies on TV/plane rides. RGM just doesn't contain any elements that sound enticing or interesting to me at all.

there you have it folks

shakey mo, ridin' the tv/plane.

it's a bird, it's a tv/plane, it's shakey mo!

(sorry. i've been out all afternoon and i come back and have ... nothing to say about any of these movies, really. except i guess that i know a lot of people who liked 24 hour party people despite knowing almost nothing about any of the bands in it.)

interesting, helpful comments

xposts

ladies and gentlemen, dr. morbius mo collier

BBM no masterpiece but it's underrated I think. I took it as a very moving depiction of the tragedy of being "gendered" at all (in the Judith Butler sense).

if someone wants to explain what's so unique/interesting about RGM I'm all ears - is there more to it than the "family melodrama at a wedding centering around an uptight, angst-ridden heroine" that all appearances would seem to indicate? is there some auteurism in action because its a Demme vehicle? it just seems horrid to me on the surface.

just see it or not.

hahaha I am also not super-interested in seeing RGM but I also know that "uptight" is not quite what Rachel is supposed to be, just from, you know, watching trailers and reading reviews

i wasn't that interested because it doesn't look like my kind of movie but a lot of people said it was good, so i will give it a try before i say it's stupid

shakey it's a good movie but i'm not really interested in arguing with your snap judgment based on a poster or something

er apparently I didn't know enough to keep from making the obvious mistake re: Anne H's character's name, oops

hi dere getting pwned

So ... is that it for today?

sorry guys, just got back from lunch. almost ate at a restaurant that's supposed to be good but i didn't like the sign or the name of the place.

more to come, 26-32!

You didn't miss much.

only quality posts like the bitching Eric's been doing all day

but i didn't like the sign or the name of the place.

:D

xpost Bitch.

^_^

BBM is the great american movie of the 00s, and I hated it before I saw it. All these arguments have been about its politics, which I don't give a shit about, and not about the movie and its love story. Love that can't happen and the melodrama and big emotions that naturally follows. It has cowboys and great landscapes and a sweet guitar soundtrack and it's so beautifully done you could cry. I like to compare it to Crouching Tiger, because it shows how well Ang Lee does HUGE emotions that aren't hidden or subtly intertwined with the plot. No, the display of huge emotions is the sole point of these two movies and they succeed masterfully because they take huge, grandiose declarations of love seriously and make them into something touching.

You voted The Sound of Music in the '60s poll, didn't you?

Well, here's contrarianism at any rate.

All these arguments have been about its politics = most of this thread

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/new_world.jpg

I liked it a lot. So beautiful. Some frightening scenes of hunger and madness at the fort, too. I hope Q'Orianka Kilcher makes more of her career than Jim Caviezel. She's equally stunning. Yeah, it's slow, but aren't most people expecting that?

― Arthur

The movie is still simmering in my brain. But I've never found TM to be a great filmmaker, and this one doesn't change my mind. It is visually ravishing, but I think cutting a few of the flying geese shots and the overlong silences between Smith and Pocahontas can only help. (Like Gere in DOH, Colin Farrell has about two facial expressions throughout; he's beautiful and broody, but we need more and don't get it.) Q'Orianka Kilcher is ultimately moving, but it took me two hours to feel that way; she is the heart of the film -- it's about Pocahontas.

The colonists are the most convincingly starving and grotty-looking you've ever seen, which in a couple of instances (religious or rebellious delirium) teeters in the direction of Monty Python.

― Dr Morbius

i saw the new cut yesterday.

having seen both versions, i cant make out much of a difference. it didnt really seem like anything was missing, and i noticed just as many new shots as i remembered shots that were missing. so not really a big change from what i can tell. i hope malick releases the longer version on dvd, since i can watch his movies all day when in the comfort of home.

anyway, it's still glorious.

― ryan

I think more people walked out of this film than any other film I have ever seen (and SOONER too--one girl heard the first voiceover, loudly said "Hell no", grabbed her friend and walked out AND then came back in five minutes later to snatch a soda from her boyfriend who had stayed haha!)

I thought it was fantastic.

― Alex in SF

"the new world" (terrence malick film)

#32

The New World
Terrence Malick
2005
United States
(444.5 points, 15 votes, 1 first place)

Still love that "hell no" story.

Better than the movie.

Hooray for TNW! Shocked it's here.

I didn't like it, but I think I'm wrong.

I don't get Malick: lots of pretty widescreen shots of actors, mouths slightly open, contemplating the Vastness of the Earth. I keep imagining the actors eating grapes.

LOL yeah it was pretty great.

what's wrong with vastness?

I haven't seen this movie but Alfred's post made me think of this:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/126475/saturday-night-live-grapes

otm

This piece made me really want to see this - so great to read such unabashed passion. "As everything else rots away, it will abide." However, I suspect my reaction will be more like Alfred's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/10/the-new-world-terrence-malick

Definitely a taste thing. Some people can't deal with, say, Heidegger's navel gazing either. And I don't blame em for it. I have all the time in the world for Malick's POV tho. Glad he's out there and someone's stupid enough to give him the money to make these extraordinary and odd movies.

lots of pretty widescreen shots of actors, mouths slightly open, contemplating the Vastness of the Earth. I keep imagining the actors eating grapes.
this is sort of true but Malick does it so well that it's not actually a bad thing

I didn't vote for The New World btw, but mostly cuz even though I loved it, it's not a patch on The Thin Red Line.

seems like a lot of these movies are just shots of actors and objects either still or in motion - what's the big deal?